[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

If he said it, and it's in his own words, then there wouldn't be a debate over it, would there?

Yes, there would. Because there are people here who will twist and bend and spin to suggest that Alan Keyes actually likes and approves of President Bush, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Why? I have NO idea. I couldn't begin to imagine why they would find it necessary to advance that idea.

Honestly, Sir G - the man called the POTUS "the bullet that kills you". The article ("I AM NOT A BUSH REPUBLICAN") was on WorldNetDaily if you want to see it. Is it that much of a leap to take his other words to mean he thinks President Bush is evil? Can we not fairly draw that conclusion, when he talks about an individual sitting down and asking himself how much "evil" he can "get away with" in relationship to President Bush's stem cell research decision?

Howlin posted what Keyes said on this thread; I guess you can decide for yourself what he means. (Not sure what post number.)

[Sir Gawain]

Is it that much of a leap to take his other words to mean he thinks President Bush is evil?

He might think Bush is evil. I don't know what's in his heart. But I can tell you that there is no quote yet shown to say the same thing, and saying "Keyes said Bush was evil" is being blatantly dishonest and misleading.

[Howlin]

"Many conservatives believe that the Clinton presidency was the most dangerous time we have faced, as Americans and conservatives, in the history of the country. I do not share this belief. Rather, I believe that we are now entering that most dangerous era. For the bullet you hear is not the one that kills you. Organized and conscious advocacy of the principles that have made American liberty possible since the founding is unlikely to die at the hands of an explicit and avowed enemy like Bill Clinton. It is actually more likely that conservatives will passively accept political euthanasia for their cause at the hands of someone we have too readily believed could be entrusted with its wise care."

[WillRain]

Because there are people here who will twist and bend and spin to suggest that Alan Keyes actually likes and approves of President Bush, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Why? I have NO idea. I couldn't begin to imagine why they would find it necessary to advance that idea.

I am a Keyes supporter and am almost always in agreement with him and I would not at all advance the idea that Keyes "likes and approves of President Bush" (though I am aware that some do).

The thing is, the 9/11 charge (which I've not seen proven) aside, I maintain that Keyes spoke of Bush's decision as evil and not Bush himself.

And to some degree, I agree with that. I do not think that is criminal to say, I think I make evil decisions on a regular basis. People can and do get it wrong sometimes.

My personal assesment of Bush is that he appears to be a very sincere Christian who WANTS to do the right thing whenever he can, but at the same time, there are several places in which I think that he did not, in fact, do the right thing. I do not, in many instances, approve of his work - and neither does Keyes.

My response to those who are beating the "evil" dead-horse is this:
So what if he did call Bush evil? What is the upshot of that? It's a far stronger statement than I would make, but on the stem cell issue and many more, lots of people agree with Keyes positions - are we all anethema because Keyes' rehtoric is a bit over-the-top?

Keyes is most certainly not perfect nor the epitomy of the ideal Republican or the ideal conservitive (news flash: Bush ain't either) but his IDEAS are second only to those of Ron Paul (if that) in terms of being ideally conservitive. And if Keyes only serves to be a megaphone for the IDEAS, then so be it - it's the IDEAS which are important.